The final SCOTUS decision today is Snyder v. US. Kavanaugh has the court's 6-3 decision on ideological grounds, holding that the Section 666 bribery statute does not apply to "gratuities" given for public officials' *past* acts. Jackson writes the liberals' dissent.
They use the word "commonplace gratuities" in the opinion and I'm so baffled. It's not commonplace at all to give a gratuity to a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL who used THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT to enrich you.
Or at least, it wasn't until now.
like "commonplace gratuity" here means "literally walking into the dealership you got a cool million and saying 'I need money' and then they give it to you."
The fuck!
So let's talk about the text of the statute and this situation.
I'm gonna take the irrelevant parts out & break this statutory text up into parts so you can see each of the elements of the offense.
* Whoever ... being an agent of a ... local ... government ...
* corruptly demands ... anything of value
* intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business ... of such ... government
* involving any thing of value of $5000 or more
shall be [punished]
Would like to discuss with *my* employer paying me in advance for my work, because currently my paycheck comes about a week after the pay period ends--
I would love to have $13,000 for doing nothing (which is what they're saying happened) just handed to me by walking into a dealership and asking for it
I used to work for a government contractor. Accepting a cuppf coffee was problematic. Not talking Starbucks, but the coffee maker in a customer's office. But hey, if someone is making the laws, then bring on the gifts!
The term "commonplace gratuities" implies the existence of "extraordinary gratuities", and I would like to hear more about those, perhaps with a list of names and amounts.
Yes, we're just "tipping" the elected politician who made us millions of dollars. No different than when you tear a fifty in half and tell the waiter he can earn the other half by being really obsequious.
Look, I'm not going to bribe you, okay? That would be illegal.
If, however, you *just so happen* to do the thing my lobby is asking for, then, after the fact, I will be very grateful and will send you a gratuity.
Which is perfectly legal and in no way a bribe.
And I can assume that in a 6-3 decision, Justice Brett voted on a case in which he was a named party??
I know VERY little about this case. If I learn more about it will I be ok with his lack of recusal?
The most consistent thing about radical, conservative wing of the Court is that, no matter how bad their rulings appear at first glance, they closer you look the worse you get.
If Dems manage to get the WH and both sides of Congress, I hope this becomes a rallying cry for packing the Court.
